Goodbye Aer Lingus

54and56

eeepaulo wrote: »

Of course every statment and document should not be instantly available, but there should be accountability, minutes of meeting? God no

There is accountability, it's called a general election. If FG do a bad job or fcuk something up badly e.g. the sale of a minority stake in a small regional airline the people will be so pi$$ed off they won't vote them back in. Instead we'll get a different party like FF who have solid experience in selling off a majority stake in a small regional airline

Snickers Man

Massimo Cassagrande wrote: »

My abiding memory of Cunnu Lingus is getting shafted up the chuff by them on flights to the UK back in the eighties. I hope they die roaring. Still can't get past the hate tbh..

So why didn't you fly with somebody else, then?

It's not like there weren't alternatives.

It's just that few of them were any better.

It's advances in technology, as much as deregulation, which have brought more planes to more places and brought costs down.

Graham

eeepaulo wrote: »

Of course every statment and document should not be instantly available, but there should be accountability, minutes of meeting? God no

Accountability to who, you? Should the cabinet have run this by you before making any decisions/recommendations?

If you don't know what has/hasn't been provided and you certainly have no idea what will be provided you're not really in a position to start waving the 'no accountability' flag.

eeepaulo

Graham wrote: »

Accountability to who, you? Should the cabinet have run this by you before making any decisions/recommendations?

If you don't know what has/hasn't been provided and you certainly have no idea what will be provided you're not really in a position to start waving the 'no accountability' flag.

You two have totally won me over, best thing is collect the 300 million.

What can we sell off next, I'm for the bridges in Dublin, I never use them.

Graham

eeepaulo wrote: »

You two have totally won me over, best thing is collect the 300 million.

What can we sell off next, I'm for the bridges in Dublin, I never use them.

Glad you've come to your senses.

Bridges aren't such a hot topic yet, there's little Union interest in them and they take too long to build to be of much use as political footballs.

54and56

eeepaulo wrote: »

You two have totally won me over, best thing is collect the 300 million.

What can we sell off next, I'm for the bridges in Dublin, I never use them.

I know you are being sarcastic but there is a serious point here which is the separation of nationally important infrastructure from operating companies.

It's strategically important for Ireland to have easy access to international flights hence there is an argument for the Govt to either run or (preferably IMHO) contract out the running of infrastructure assets such as airports and ports (as Irish Rail are just about to do with Rosslare Port http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/operations-at-investmenthungry-rosslare-port-to-be-privatised-31256510.html) but there is little or no argument for any Govt to run the operating companies who use the aforementioned infrastructure. To ensure the Govts strategic objective (lot's of connectivity to meet demand) is met all they have to do is provide the right regulatory and supervisory environment to attract private operating companies.

Sell the operating companies, encourage competition and multiple operators to enter the market and retain ownership of but contract out management of the infrastructure.

Sorted.

Graham

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Sell the operating companies and retain ownership of but contract out management of the infrastructure. Sorted.

+1

end of the road

Quin_Dub wrote: »

~€400M from the sale which will be put into a "Communications Investment Fund" to be spent on Broadband programs etc. - Very good

yeah. because its going to be spent on that. FG would never lie to us now would they?

Quin_Dub wrote: »

7 year protection of the Heathrow slots - Bit silly, but keeps the union muppets onside

what "union muppets" people who look after their members are not muppets, only anti-workers rights types would think so

54and56

Graham wrote: »

+1

I'll see you in Buswells later with the rest of the back room lads to plot our next scheme

end of the road

Calina wrote: »

The most effective way for the government to protect the Heathrow slots is not by guarantees or rules or legal agreements.

It is by ensuring the economy is healthy and growing.

no, guarantees rules and legal agreements is the best way as they are protected no matter what for 7 years

Graham

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I'll see you in Buswells later with the rest of the back room lads to plot our next scheme

Maybe the Galway Hooker or Oslo Bar would be more appropriate

end of the road

Eugene Norman wrote: »

In general I think that this is a good idea, at this time.





Asking why the State ever owned an airline is like asking why the state owned the electricity companies, or telephone lines, or railways. The private capital wasn't there at the time.

and for the railways, it never will. in saying that the state should own the electricity and telephone lines to ensure no private monopolies

end of the road

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Didn't the Govt hire IBI Corporate Finance and Credit Suisse to assess the offer and they issued their report confirming the proposed deal = good value for shareholders? Maybe the report hasn't been made public yet (why should it?) but don't forget the Govt isn't the largest shareholder. If M O'Leary goes for the deal and other shareholders go for the deal isn't that validation that the amount offered is attractive Vs the alternative of holding and investing in what would continue to be a small regional unionised airline dwarfed by it's largest competitor Ryanair who have announced plans to compete on the transatlantic routes and will result in downward pressure on prices and margins for Aer Lingus going forward.

the report should published because the people were shareholders in the company so were entitled to know whats in the report

Graham

end of the road wrote: »

and for the railways, it never will. in saying that the state should own the electricity and telephone lines to ensure no private monopolies

ah the good old days again when TE and ESB were the models of cost effective efficient service provision. **shudders**

Anyway, slightly off topic I guess.

54and56

end of the road wrote: »

what "union muppets" people who look after their members are not muppets, only anti-workers rights types would think so

What does it feel like back in the 70's?? :P

Only joking. Ridiculous as I think your opinions are you are entitled to them. Without diversity of opinion the world would be a poorer place.

Graham

end of the road wrote: »

the report should published because the people were shareholders in the company so were entitled to know whats in the report

Submit your FOI request.

54and56

Graham wrote: »

Maybe the Galway Hooker or Oslo Bar would be more appropriate

And you're a crafty as well? Just as well the same sex marriage passed last week. Now we can really get it on

54and56

end of the road wrote: »

and for the railways, it never will.

Never say never - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33599744/ns/business-us_business/t/buffett-buying-burlington-northern-railroad/

Graham

end of the road wrote: »

when those elected representitives have been proven not to be trustworthy, railroad things through against the public will (IW AND MORE) ITS PROOF WERE ENTITLED TO HAVE EVERY REPORT AND EVERY POSSIBLE THING PUBLISHED AS PROOF AND FOR THOSE REPRESENTITIVES TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN THEMSELVES LIVE TO THE NATION WHATEVER THE COST

If only there were some democratic way of replacing those representatives, oh hang on....

54and56

end of the road wrote: »

the report should published because the people were shareholders in the company so were entitled to know whats in the report

Wrong. It is the Govt who are they shareholders and they have asked for and received all the information they need to make this decision on our behalf.

Where would you draw the line at what "we" are entitled to know? Perhaps we should all have access to all public sector employees HR files and performance reviews? We are paying them each and every public servant so shouldn't "we" have access to the payroll data so we know how much "we're" paying each and every one of them?

I bet you don't fancy that idea do you?

end of the road

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I know you are being sarcastic but there is a serious point here which is the separation of nationally important infrastructure from operating companies.

It's strategically important for Ireland to have easy access to international flights hence there is an argument for the Govt to either run or (preferably IMHO) contract out the running of infrastructure assets such as airports and ports (as Irish Rail are just about to do with Rosslare Port http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/operations-at-investmenthungry-rosslare-port-to-be-privatised-31256510.html) but there is little or no argument for any Govt to run the operating companies who use the aforementioned infrastructure. To ensure the Govts strategic objective (lot's of connectivity to meet demand) is met all they have to do is provide the right regulatory and supervisory environment to attract private operating companies.

Sell the operating companies, encourage competition and multiple operators to enter the market and retain ownership of but contract out management of the infrastructure.

Sorted.

what competition. sometimes multiple operators aren't viable. if not, then the state must run that 1 company

end of the road

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Wrong. It is the Govt who are they shareholders and they have asked for and received all the information they need to make this decision on our behalf.

Where would you draw the line at what "we" are entitled to know? Perhaps we should all have access to all public sector employees HR files and performance reviews? We are paying them each and every public servant so shouldn't "we" have access to the payroll data so we know how much "we're" paying each and every one of them?

I bet you don't fancy that idea do you?

we are the shareholders as its our money going into it. the government doing something on our behalf means nothing as they cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the people. there not doing this in my name

54and56

end of the road wrote: »

what competition. sometimes multiple operators aren't viable. if not, then the state must run that 1 company

Can you support that assertion with any evidence or real world examples?

Competition lowers cost and promotes innovation. Monopolies, particularly state monopolies are the polar opposite.

Graham

end of the road wrote: »

there not doing this in my name

Correct, they're doing it as the elected Irish Government.

end of the road

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

What does it feel like back in the 70's?? :P

Only joking. Ridiculous as I think your opinions are you are entitled to them. Without diversity of opinion the world would be a poorer place.

unions are as relevant today as they were in the 90s 80s 70s and before. very relevant. they are needed, necessary, and do good work for their members

awec

end of the road wrote: »

we are the shareholders as its our money going into it. the government doing something on our behalf means nothing as they cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the people. there not doing this in my name

I am not sure you know how democracy works.

The government are elected to work on our behalf. They make decisions on our behalf.

Not every single person has to agree with every single decision.

If every taxpayer had to be consulted and informed of every decision the government makes then nothing would ever get done.

end of the road

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Never say never - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33599744/ns/business-us_business/t/buffett-buying-burlington-northern-railroad/

that link means nothing. ireland is a small island, with a small rail network which isn't proffitable but socially necessary. safe to say there is no private capital coming

Graham

end of the road wrote: »

that link means nothing. ireland is a small island, with a small rail network which isn't proffitable but socially necessary. safe to say there is no private capital coming

Never say never.

54and56

end of the road wrote: »

we are the shareholders as its our money going into it. the government doing something on our behalf means nothing as they cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the people. there not doing this in my name

Do you seriously believe anything you write? Our Govt were elected by the "we" you keep referring to. By electing them we placed our trust in them.

Time (and in particular the next election) will tell if they have or haven't done a good job overall. Until then they are our elected representatives and that doesn't change just because a few tin foil hat wearing left wing loopers disagree with them*




* Not referring to you end of the road.

end of the road

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Competition lowers cost and promotes innovation.

not in a lot of cases. britain for example. so called "competition" in the energy sector has brought cosy cartels. also, competition doesn't guarantee innovation. for example, the british bus market. where regulation does exist, councils and transport regulators have to do it all bar the running because the private companies cannot be trusted if left to their own devices. other then that, the companies are free to do as they please meaning little services. as much as our state operators have problems i'd rather have them then not.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Monopolies, particularly private monopolies are the polar opposite.

fixed. state monopolies are better then private monopolies

54and56

end of the road wrote: »

ireland is a small island, with a small rail network which isn't proffitable but socially necessary.

OK, let me explain again. The actual rail network is a national asset the managing of which should be contracted out. For that to happen the private operator just needs to be 15% more efficient than the current state operator. My own anecdotal evidence seeing loads of Irish Rail workers sloping around Heuston station and chatting in little groups for extended periods of time give me great confidence that a private operator of the network would not only deliver cost savings for "we" the taxpayers but would also provide them with enough profit to take on the task.

Same goes for outsourcing the operation of the trains. Just do it more efficiently and it's a win win for everybody. If I'm not mistaken that's how the LUAS operates and it's a very efficient cost effective service.

end of the road

Graham wrote: »

Correct, they're doing it as the elected Irish Government.

they aren't. i didn't elect them, so they aren't doing it in my name. this should have been put to the people

Larbre34

end of the road wrote: »

they aren't. i didn't elect them, so they aren't doing it in my name. this should have been put to the people

:rolleyes:

end of the road

awec wrote: »

I am not sure you know how democracy works.

The government are elected to work on our behalf. They make decisions on our behalf.

Not every single person has to agree with every single decision.

If every taxpayer had to be consulted and informed of every decision the government makes then nothing would ever get done.

i didn't vote for them, so there not making decisians on my behalf

end of the road

Graham wrote: »

Never say never.

i will say never

Graham

end of the road wrote: »

they aren't. i didn't elect them, so they aren't doing it in my name. this should have been put to the people

It was put to the people in an election.

end of the road wrote: »

i will say never

Whatever make you feel better.

end of the road

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Do you seriously believe anything you write? Our Govt were elected by the "we" you keep referring to. By electing them we placed our trust in them.

Time (and in particular the next election) will tell if they have or haven't done a good job overall. Until then they are our elected representatives and that doesn't change just because a few tin foil hat wearing left wing loopers disagree with them*




* Not referring to you end of the road.

i didn't elect them and i didn't and won't be placing my trust in them. never trust a government

54and56

end of the road wrote: »

unions are as relevant today as they were in the 90s 80s 70s and before. very relevant. they are needed, necessary, and do good work for their members

You really are hilarious. So this is a picture of success and relevance then?

Mr. Incognito

end of the road wrote: »

i didn't elect them and i didn't and won't be placing my trust in them. never trust a government

I dont think you understand the basics of how a democracy works.

Uncle Ben

end of the road wrote: »

unions are as relevant today as they were in the 90s 80s 70s and before. very relevant. they are needed, necessary, and do good work for their members

I don't think the unions of the 70s or 80s would have supported jobsbridge or gateway schemes.

Graham

end of the road wrote: »

i didn't elect them and i didn't and won't be placing my trust in them. never trust a government

You're not having a good day there EOTR, it looks like the general population don't agree with your opinion on unions or choice of government.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

You really are hilarious. So this is a picture of success and relevance then?

54and56

Uncle Ben wrote: »

I don't think the unions of the 70s or 80s would have supported jobsbridge or gateway schemes.

Who cares what they would or wouldn't have supported. the days of the free market being bullied by a hard core of union activists are well and truly over forever*

Never say forever :eek:

54and56

end of the road wrote: »

i didn't elect them and i didn't and won't be placing my trust in them. never trust a government

So what is the point of an election? Is it simply so the people we elect can collect the info needed and then hold a daily referendum on all the decisions which have to be made?

Is that what you're proposing?

end of the road

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

OK, let me explain again. The actual rail network is a national asset the managing of which should be contracted out.

no it shouldn't. it must remain within state hands for the greater good of ensureing safety and keeping it going dispite the little it gets. britain tried that and they got railtrack, a company who struggled, could and didn't do much, wasn't able to manage its infrastructure and didn't know what it had. and of course the various rail crashes under its rein. it proved that the railway infrastructure isn't viable in private hands and cannot be trusted in private hands.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

For that to happen the private operator just needs to be 15% more efficient than the current state operator.

wrong. it can't be any more efficient. the nature of the track doesn't allow it and to allow it would cost billions, something that we haven't got and isn't going to come from private capital. thats the reality. also, looking at our neighbour where such investment has been viable and the service is more intensive but in private hands, large scale cancelations of services when things go wrong is rife as the bare minimum of staff to run the average service is employed meaning no leeway should things go wrong.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

My own anecdotal evidence seeing loads of Irish Rail workers sloping around Heuston station and chatting in little groups for extended periods of time give me great confidence that a private operator of the network would not only deliver cost savings for "we" the taxpayers but would also provide them with enough profit to take on the task.

wrong. the proffits would have to come from double or quadruple subsidies which would mean more of a cost to the tax payer, along with extremely higher fares.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Same goes for outsourcing the operation of the trains. Just do it more efficiently and it's a win win for everybody.

its not. again there would need to be huge subsidies to ensure a return for those companies shareholders. it can't be run more efficiently without huge investment in track where possible, and some of the lines can't be upgraded any further to be any more intensive. also, such companies would only employ the bare minimum of staff to run the average service but not enough to allow cover or not enough cover, meaning should something happen there would be large scale service cancelations and more. its just to costly for the problems it would bring. the current system for all its faults keeps services going

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

If I'm not mistaken that's how the LUAS operates and it's a very efficient cost effective service.

luas cannot be compared to a heavy rail system. its a small light rail system which is self contained

end of the road

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Who cares what they would or wouldn't have supported. the days of the free market being bullied by a hard core of union activists are well and truly over forever*

Never say forever :eek:

the market was never bullied by anyone. the market wasn't viable at one stage and for some things never will be viable. all the unions did was look for better for their members and faced lies and spin at every turn.

Graham

end of the road wrote: »

luas cannot be compared to a heavy rail system. its a small light rail system which is self contained

I have no idea what that means. Care to explain?

end of the road wrote: »

the market wasn't viable at one stage

Until the Unions lost some of there power, then it was viable.

Uncle Ben

Hoping for a walk through vote tomorrow in relation to the sale. It might result in a few more LP tds getting it in the neck when they return to the Northside and Shannon for the long weekend. Tick Tock.

54and56

Uncle Ben wrote: »

Hoping for a walk through vote tomorrow in relation to the sale. It might result in a few more LP tds getting it in the neck when they return to the Northside and Shannon for the long weekend. Tick Tock.

The reality is the decision is made and the Dail debate is simply a sideshow allowing TD's who's constituencies are affected to do a bit of grandstanding which will go down well locally and help offset the parish pump brigade who will seek to hang them out to dry because they put the national interest ahead of local or trade union interest.

It's just a game and two days is enough time for them all to do a bit of self congratulating on how they fought to ensure .....blah blah blah..... for their constituents.

Uncle Ben

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

The reality is the decision is made and the Dail debate is simply a sideshow allowing TD's who's constituencies are affected to do a bit of grandstanding which will go down well locally and help offset the parish pump brigade who will seek to hang them out to dry because they put the national interest ahead of local or trade union interest.



It's just a game and two days is enough time for them all to do a bit of self congratulating on how they fought to ensure .....blah blah blah..... for their constituents.

Agreed. However anything that knocks another % point or two from Labour will suit me.

awec

end of the road wrote: »

i didn't vote for them, so there not making decisians on my behalf

Yes they are. Doesn't matter if you voted for them or not. The majority of people voted for them, that's why they're in government.